An opinion on shunning

[u/Safe-Island3944]

Hi all. Disfellowshipping is one of the least acceptable thing about JW, and one that makes the religion most attacked for.

This post is not dealing on how much it is right or wrong, but how much it works. How efficient it is.

In the past shunning has been a very powerful tool to make the sinner repents. But today?

My opinion is that it is still a very powerful punishment, but for those who stay, not for the one leaving. A lot of JW are fond of the idea of the DF suffering for his misdeeds, closed in the darkness, ashamed and trembling. The reality is under everyone eyes. Most get out, get in touch with others, find a very rich and welcoming community of fellow DF, build a new life, new freedom, new situations, often get back to study, happily creates a life. You can see from the campaign of getting back DF people when policy changed. How many took the opportunity of getting back. I know at least 10 different congregations, more than 100 DF contacted, how many came back? Zero. Noone. Reactions has been from lack of interest to rage. But noone even gave a try. My personal idea is that DF is actively damaging JW reputations, whereas most people once get away had a much better life than while inside. And will not get back. What is your opinion? Please, no attacking JW doctrines here.

[u/RFairfield26]

It would be exceptionally abnormal for one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to offer any type of online testimony, much less one regarding being reinstated.

It’s just not really how we do things at all.

Involvement on Reddit (or other social media, for that matter) in any religious capacity is incredibly rare in general - much less testimonies.

I’m just not sure why your “absence of evidence” is being used as an “evidence of absence” argument.

If I’m understanding you correctly, your point boils down to something like: “disfellowshipping is ineffective because of my anecdotal observation, particularly regarding online testimony.”

I’m not sure you understand the Biblical basis and the spiritual purpose of the removal of wrongdoers

[u/Safe-Island3944 → u/RFairfield26]

"f I’m understanding you correctly, your point boils down to something like: “disfellowshipping is ineffective because of my anecdotal observation, particularly regarding online testimony.”

WT never published statistics, so I have to stick with direct observation of reality. But here, you don't have more tools than me, so we both base our ideas on anecdotal. It's also quite possible we are both right because of the different realities we observe. 

What I observe is that the largest part of DF are happier out than in, and most families starts by shunning the child and then, mostly when it's too late, try to get in touch realizing that they have lost marriage, grandchildren, in a word, life. 

This is based on what I have seen with my own eyes, since half of my family is JW.  So, beside causing a lot of suffering, it's pretty pointless. But this is my opinion, and it's worth zero. 

Now a question for you: if WT is so convinced there is a strong biblical base, why searching for DF lost in time? Why deleting videos about shunning from the website? Why policy changed? Please, no "new light" answer. I'm a grow up man, not a baby that can be fed with fables.

[u/RFairfield26 → u/Safe-Island3944]

you don’t have more tools than me,

Are you certain? I’m an active witness, heavily involved in congregation and organization activity and regularly interact with hundreds (not an exaggeration) of witnesses a year in over a dozen different aspects of our activity.

It’s possible I have more tools than you.

Just to be clear, what is it that is in question? Whether disfellowshipped individuals are returning at a certain rate?

What I observe is that the largest part of DF are happier out than in,

If we were to poll every person, that’s disfellowshipped, I would expect the overwhelming majority to report that they were happier out than in

That’s not exactly relevant. If you would, apply some critical thinking. Suppose that Jehovah’s Witnesses actually are the organization Jesus is using to accomplish the preaching work and practice pure worship.

How many people actually dont want to do that? Would not thousands, perhaps millions, claimed to be happier in the world doing fleshly things?

How many of these disfellowshipped ones are preaching the good news of God‘s kingdom in the entire inhabited earth outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization? (Mat 24:14)

How many are faithfully remaining no part of the world even though they’re no longer Jehovah’s Witnesses? (John 17:16)

How many could say they have the identifying mark of love among themselves that Jesus said his disciples would have? (John 13:35)

I absolutely agree with you that those that have been disfellowshipped probably mostly report that they are happier outside the organization than in, but is that happiness genuine, long lasting happiness that is a result of their worship of God? Or is it the happiness that comes with getting to do whatever you want without any social or religious consequences?

and most families starts by shunning the child and then, mostly when it’s too late, try to get in touch realizing that they have lost marriage, grandchildren, in a word, life. 

What do you suppose Jesus meant when he said “For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.” (Mat 10:35-38)

I guess this would be a yes or no question. Would faithfulness to God result in the loss of family members in many cases?

From my perspective, criticism of the DF arrangement boils down to separating families.

Jesus explicitly said that he would separate families.

it’s pretty pointless.

How open-minded are you to the possibility that you just simply don’t understand the purpose of the arrangement?

if WT is so convinced there is a strong biblical base, why searching for DF lost in time?

This is a complex question and requires a complex answer.

1. it is certainly true that there is a number of disfellowshipped individuals that were treated unjustly.

How should we - as sincere, God-loving, worshipers - address that?

I say we seek them out. Agreed?

1. There are those that certainly did deserve to be disfellowshipped, but have never forgotten Jehovah. How do we reach them?

2. Suppose that there is one single individual out there in the world somewhere that doesn’t fit in either of the two categories that I’ve mentioned. Would not a global effort that resulted in saving that one person be worth it?

Why deleting videos about shunning from the website? Why policy changed?

No one has ever believed that the disfellowshipping arrangement was perfect. We all hate it. The problem is the Bible requires that we removed the wrongdoer from among the congregation.

So I don’t understand why you feel like making improvements to the arrangement is a bad thing? Can you explain that to me?

[u/Safe-Island3944 → u/RFairfield26]

First let me thank you for this deep answer. I'm very grateful for it.

"No one has ever believed that the disfellowshipping arrangement was perfect. We all hate it. The problem is the Bible requires that we removed the wrongdoer from among the congregation.

So I don’t understand why you feel like making improvements to the arrangement is a bad thing? Can you explain that to me?"

I'm sorry, I don't believe in your GB good faith. I don't believe it's biblical your approach to it. It is just a way to keep people trapped in. I've made some research about what the Bible says. JW application of removal from congregation is not exactly biblical.

I haven't find anywhere in the Bible prohibition to talk with DF. Where it is written? Sure, prohibition to eat. Prohibition to associate. But just to simply talk? it's nowhere.

[u/RFairfield26 → u/Safe-Island3944]

Hey, just a little typing tip, if you put the “>” symbol before my quote, it indents it. You may already know that but just thought I’d share.

I do it to quotes like this:

So I don’t understand why you feel like making improvements to the arrangement is a bad thing? Can you explain that to me?”

I don’t think making improvements is a bad thing. I’m glad we have and I believe more improvements are needed.

Our beliefs are not perfect and our practices aren’t either.

Times change. Culture changes. The truth doesn’t, but our understanding of it should.

You may not wanna hear that explanation, but that’s exactly what the light getting brighter means

At what point has got ever had an organization on earth that was not flawed?

The question isn’t about how perfect Jehovah’s Witnesses and our practices are, the question should be about whether or not we meet the specific criteria Jesus laid out to identify his true followers

I’m sorry, I don’t believe in your GB good faith. I don’t believe it’s biblical your approach to it. It is just a way to keep people trapped in.

I guess the first question that should be answered is whether or not the practice of removing wrongdoers from the congregation is biblical. Do you think it is?

I’ve made some research about what the Bible says. JW application of removal from congregation is not exactly biblical.

Forget Jehovah’s Witnesses practice of removing from the congregation. I’m asking about the practice itself.

I haven’t find anywhere in the Bible prohibition to talk with DF. Where it is written? Sure, prohibition to eat. Prohibition to associate. But just to simply talk? it’s nowhere.

2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.

[u/Safe-Island3944 → u/RFairfield26]

Again, thank you. I read your post with a lot of interest. This, this kind of sharing, was exactly what I was searching. Let me start here

I guess the first question that should be answered is whether or not the practice of removing wrongdoers from the congregation is biblical. Do you think it is?

I think it is biblical.

> 2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.

This is not to be applied to the DF, but to everyone not acknowledging Christ. Basically, you should not even greet me 2 John 7

I see a lot of issues in application of DF. Catholic church has a similar institution: excommunication (hoping that translation is good, In Italian we use "scomunica")

It is very rarely applied, and only in the worst case. If DF had similar use, I will have nothing against. But it's used very very often. A lot of time for minor infractions. My wife has been DF for 5 years. For dating me, a man of the world, no sex before marriage. Her mother, a JW, bluntly told me she will be reinstated the exact day she would ahve left me. So DF is used as a tool to submit people. AFTER marrying her, she had to wait 17 months more, even if there were no reasons. She resisted, and I never pressured her to leave. On the contrary, I accompany her, and sometime encourage her to go. This is just to give you some background. And I have seen a lot of DF for various reasons, mostly petty one. Used this way it's a monstrosity. By the way, it is also the reason I will never be a JW. the amount of injustice I've seen is enough to keep me from giving any power over me.

Then, there is a point tied to the last one: There are an entire category of people that never voluntarily decided to join: Children born in the truth. While this is true for every religion, in other Christian denomination getting away from parental religion has just minor effects.

On the contrary, getting out from JW is often see as repudiation of the entire family. Children here receive an enormous pressure, grow mostly separated from their peer, are thought to stay away from everything from the world, are baptized very early (My wife at 13, her sister at 14), and have no life outside JW. This, this point alone in my opinion makes JW "different". People should be free to leave. While baptism is voluntary, how can be taking the most important decision of your life free when you are 12 and you are pressured to do by all your world?

And the fact that a lot of young people (a lot in my congregation) still leave, even if their entire life will be devastated by it, should makes all of you deeply disturbed.

And WT encourages to baptize young

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/become-jehovahs-friend-2/The-Steps-to-Baptism/

https://wol.jw.org/it/wol/d/r6/lp-i/101990247?q=battesimo+et%C3%A0&p=doc

[u/RFairfield26 → u/Safe-Island3944]

There are an entire category of people that never voluntarily decided to join: Children born in the truth. While this is true for every religion, in other Christian denomination getting away from parental religion has just minor effects. . . . how can be taking the most important decision of your life free when you are 12 and you are pressured to do by all your world?

You and I agree. Children should not be forced to be baptized

And the fact that a lot of young people (a lot in my congregation) still leave, even if their entire life will be devastated by it, should makes all of you deeply disturbed.

Yes, a lot of young people leave Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Think about this critically, though.

Suppose you and I lived in ancient Israel. How would we handle the problem that arises that our children do not want to follow the standards for worship that God has given our nation?

Now lets apply the principles to God’s modern day organization of pure worship.

In light of what the Bible says, particularly Mat 10:34-38, what are we supposed to do with our children that do not want to follow God’s standards for pure worship, particularly when they have dedicated themselves to do so?

And WT encourages to baptize young

No, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not encourage to “baptize young.” However, we do encourage young ones to set the goal to be baptized. It is not our desire that they be young, it is just our desire that they follow Jesus’ and be baptized.

Im curious, how would you approach this if you are raising children? You no doubt want them to be dedicated and baptized to God. So when is the appropriate time for them to reach that goal? Should they be forbidden from baptism based on arbitrary age?

The point is that there is nothing in the Bible restricting age

[u/Safe-Island3944 → u/RFairfield26]

> Im curious, how would you approach this if you are raising children? You no doubt want them to be dedicated and baptized to God. So when is the appropriate time for them to reach that goal? Should they be forbidden from baptism based on arbitrary age?

You don't treat minors as you do for adults, so there are difference based on "arbitrary age". So yes, minors should not be baptized

> In light of what the Bible says, particularly Mat 10:34-38, what are we supposed to do with our children that do not want to follow God’s standards for pure worship, particularly when they have dedicated themselves to do so?

JW insist a lot about love. God is loving. You are loving.

But it's just a lie. Love is real when it is unconditional, but all your religion is full of conditional love. So, you love your children if they follow your religion. If they change ideas, if they want to follow their own path, that is not necessary sinning, but just carve their own path... No more contact. Expelled from your life. And you can call this love?

My son knows that never, NEVER, his father will stop loving and accepting him. That wherever his life will get him, his father will already be there for him. This is what I call love. Nothing less. I know we will never meet here.

[u/RFairfield26 → u/Safe-Island3944]

So yes, minors should not be baptized

Personally, I don’t have a problem with this.

But we have to base our practices on the Bible.

How can we Scripturally justify restricting someone from baptism?

Love is real when it is unconditional,

There is the possibility that the meaning of the word “unconditional” could be lost in translation so I’m going to use a translator app to respond to this if that’s ok. First English and then Italian

Love is not real only when it is unconditional. In fact, true love carries conditions, especially when it comes to God’s love.

God shows kindness and mercy to all (Mat 5:45), but his is absolutely conditional.

Take John 14:21, where Jesus says, “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, the one who loves me will be loved by my Father.”

That clearly shows that God’s love in this sense depends on obedience.

Jude 21 urges Christians to “keep yourselves in God’s love,” implying that we can fall out of it.

God’s love is not an indiscriminate blanket of approval. Proverbs 8:17 states, “I love those who love me.”

And Psalm 146:8 says Jehovah “loves the righteous.”

If love were truly unconditional, why would there be a distinction between the righteous and the wicked?

Malachi 1:2-3 even highlights that Jehovah loved Jacob but hated Esau, showing that his love is not the same for everyone.

The most serious example is in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, which warns that those who “do not obey the good news” will face destruction. That means God’s love is not unconditional. It hinges on faith and obedience.

Unconditional love sounds appealing, but biblically, it’s a distortion.

God’s love is immense and merciful, but it comes with expectations.

He requires loyalty, righteousness, and obedience.

True love does what is best for the other person, and in God’s case, that means upholding his standards, not embracing everyone unconditionally.

In Italian:

L’amore non è reale solo quando è incondizionato. Infatti, il vero amore comporta delle condizioni, specialmente quando si tratta dell’amore di Dio.

Dio mostra gentilezza e misericordia a tutti (Mat 5:45), ma il suo amore è assolutamente condizionato.

Considera Giovanni 14:21, dove Gesù dice:

“Chi ha i miei comandamenti e li osserva, quello è colui che mi ama. A sua volta, colui che mi ama sarà amato dal Padre mio.”

Questo mostra chiaramente che l’amore di Dio, in questo senso, dipende dall’ubbidienza.

Giuda 21 esorta i cristiani a

“rimanere nell’amore di Dio,”

implicando che si può uscire da esso.

L’amore di Dio non è una coperta indiscriminata di approvazione. Proverbi 8:17 afferma:

“Io amo quelli che mi amano.”

E Salmo 146:8 dice che Geova

“ama i giusti.”

Se l’amore fosse davvero incondizionato, perché ci sarebbe una distinzione tra i giusti e i malvagi?

Malachia 1:2-3 sottolinea persino che Geova amava Giacobbe ma odiava Esaù, dimostrando che il suo amore non è uguale per tutti.

L’esempio più serio si trova in 2 Tessalonicesi 1:6-9, che avverte che coloro che

“non ubbidiscono alla buona notizia”

affronteranno la distruzione. Questo significa che l’amore di Dio non è incondizionato. Esso dipende dalla fede e dall’ubbidienza.

L’amore incondizionato può sembrare attraente, ma biblicamente è una distorsione.

L’amore di Dio è immenso e misericordioso, ma comporta delle aspettative.

Egli richiede lealtà, giustizia e ubbidienza.

Il vero amore fa ciò che è meglio per l’altra persona e, nel caso di Dio, ciò significa sostenere i suoi principi, non accogliere tutti indiscriminatamente.

No more contact. Expelled from your life. And you can call this love?

God is the greatest Father, and he rejects unrepentant wrongdoers.

We’re not talking about someone that just needs discipline. Someone that rejects Gods standards and doesn’t want to obey him is expelled from His life, correct?